Runaway Fruitfulness

Back in 1942 the world population was calculated to be two billion. Today, in a mere sixty-seven years, the world population is hurtling toward seven billion!

For some head-in-the-sand reason, world overpopulation has been pretty much treated as a taboo subject for too long as a media concern. This avoidance is practiced in spite of the fact that global poverty and possible ecological catastrophe are directly tied to the explosive increase of human lives.

Once upon a time, of course, multiple children were valued as a resource for the parents in their declining years. Technology and science contributed toward healthier offspring and protection from diseases, so runaway fruitfulness was/is no longer necessary as a means of self-insurance.

The so-called sacred books of man's religions catered to this preservation tactic, and in addition almost universally indulged in the idea that exploiting the planet was their "divine right." The instruction for this was supposedly stated by god: Be fruitful and multiply (Genesis 1:28). At that particular point in the priest-written story, the "man" created in the image of god was something like a hermaphrodite. How "he" was to "replenish the earth and subdue it" hovers like a divine mystery: sexual reproduction could not have been an active issue until after the strategically placed "forbidden fruit" had been nibbled (chapter three of Genesis).

This "revealed wisdom" and instruction, unfortunately, implied that all entities are expected to become breeders for god! Leaders of most religious sects all subscribed to that teaching for the simple reason that it assured an increase in their followers. This is still the mindset of those seeped in the illogicality of religious storytelling and look upon bearing numerous children as an expression of god's love and abundance. This irrationality is so pronounced even today that various national leaders advocate childbirth bounties!

The present world population is ecologically unsustainable. History has shown clearly that in periods when human population increased up to sevenfold there followed disasters of unpresedented food shortages, escalating prices for essentials, followed by rampage and riots--even cannibalism. But still we have religious resistance to contraceptives, sexual information, and taugh aversion of same sex attraction--which well may be Nature's way of keeping resources and life forces in balance for a habitable planet.

"Charitable Choice"

During the drafting of the Welfare Reform Act in 1996, the then-Senator from Missouri, John David Ashcroft (R-MO) advanced the idea of "charitable choice." The reference-label was something of a misnomer, for the covert intention of the program was to provide a wedge for that would permit the government to fund religious groups and ministries.

Within weeks after George W. Bush swore upon two Bibles at his inauguration in 2001 to uphold the Constitution he was leading the charge in support of the "charitable choice" policy. And John Ashcroft was installed as his Attorney General. A self-proclaimed "Born Again Christian," Bush quickly sought to distribute federal tax money to ministries, ostensibly to provide social services that were already provided through secular grantees and government agencies. The policy sought to alter the existing laws in a manner that could utilize the power of the federal government to support Christian conversions--a move that is in direct opposition to the religious freedoms guaranteed by the First Amendment.

Using tax dollars to fund churches and ministries to represent government social welfare is, in itself, unconstitutional. Add to this that "charitable choice," as attempted, intentionally avoided any protective safeguards that would prevent religious coercion and abuses. Incorporating religion into publicly funded programs had always been avoided by the government sometimes contracting separate entities of religious institutions and in that way established safeguards that protected the rights of the disadvantaged, the interests of all tax payers, and insured the integrity of the groups providing welfare.

Although charitable choice became part of the welfare law in 1996, the constitutional concerns caused democracy's representatives to hesitate in implementing the policy. Many saw it as a disguised way of forcing taxpayers to subsidize religion whether they believed in it or not--clearly a means of sabotaging the constitutional principle of separation of church and state.

But Bush like to think of himself as a god-chosen leader, and seemed hell-bent on applying charitable choice to practically every aspect of government funding. The resultant and unending hoopla made democracy tremble, alarming civil rights and civil liberties groups, educational and social communities, and even the more rationally balanced religious communities.

Providing social service can be a noble endeavor for religious groups, but the faith-based initiative as attempted is a policy that is concerned with neither democratic principles nor relgious liberty.

Militant Faith

Disrespect by the US military for the First Amendment rights of soldiers--the rights of free speech as well as the rights of religious freedom, which include the freedom from religion--have been increasingly demonstrated by uniformed Chrisitan evangelical fanatics for decades. Those indulging in religious promotion and discrimination have ranged from Brigadier Generals down throught the ranks to staff sergeants who have actively endorsed and participated in evangelical promotions

A watchdog organization, the Military Religious Freedom Foundation (MRFF) investigated complaints of more than 5,000 active duty and retired soldiers through 2005 to 2007, many that served or were still serving in Iraq that had been pressured by their commanding officers to embrace evangelical Christianity. Complaints of similar holy harassment continue to this day.

As a result of this constitutionally impermissible promotion of a religious belief system throughout branches of the military, a flood of lawsuits were filed against the Pentagon. One example of the religious harassment is the case where an Army Major broke up a meeting of soldiers that shared atheist principles: the Major going so far as to threaten to block the principal organizer's reenlistment in the army if the group continued to meet. Clearly such action is a flagrant violation of the soldier's First Amendment rights under the US Constitution.

Other similar violations involve Department of Defense (DOD) officials who appeared in uniform while on active duty in a 2004 promotional video for a fundamental Christian organization that calls itself the Christian Embassy. This gave the deceitful impression that the officers spoke officially on behalf of the military.

The lame excuse for this unconstitutional promotion was that the Christian Embassy had become a quasi-Federal entity with the DOD endorsing the organization to General Officers for over twenty-five years! Indeed, Christian Embassy, which is affiliated with Campus Crusade for Christ, have been providing faith-tilted studies used in the Pentagon and which clearly seek influence over Congress, the Executive Branch, and over the diplomatic community.

It is certain that true democratic principles are NOT being served by those attempting an evangelical coup in the military branches and the three branches of national government. We remain free to ponder that if the God they embrace is forced to resort to such a deceitful manner to glorify himself can he truly be called omniscient (all-knowing) or omnipotent (all-powerful)?

Fear of Diversity

The world today is troubled with societies and cultures that are influenced not by a passion for Truth but by man-conceived religious practices that attempt to herd everyone into servitude through indoctrinization, strict rituals, and rigid regimentation. The hallmarks of such religious posturing are seen in the heavy indulgence in faultfinding, finger-pointing, name-calling, and passing judgment upon anyone unlike themselves. Everyone is thus intimidated and discouraged from celebrating their personal unique perspective of life.

Along with this contrived approach to spirit, these faiths exhibit a shocking ignorance of our place and purpose in the universe, which has in turn encouraged a shameful disregard for nature and the welfare of our little planet.

Indeed, there has been displayed a deep contempt for nature in highly organized religions, and they continue to insist that there can be no deviation from their narrow man-conceived ideologies. These faith systems fail to acknowledge the respect that the universe has for diversity. Earth, the very planet that these institutionalized religions seek to constrain with their prejudices, is itself the example that disproves the hard-line notions that are used to manipulate people.

Consider: In the solar system family lineup, Earth is the unique one, the deviant one, the self-expressed rebel, and the refuge of intelligent life.

The real salvation of life--as we know it at least--is the one planet that is quite unlike all the rest of the planets in the solar system. This fact is glaringly at odds with the doctrines of organized hard-line religions that attempt to bludgeon everyone into cookie cutter sameness. What this attests to is that the intention, the necessity within creation is for diverse ways and life expressions that may develop with higher potential.

In short, diversity and variation should be recognized as the second law of Creation (the first being unlimited abundance), for any "salvation" of genuine spiritual value rests in the freedom to express uniqueness without shame.

Code of Life

The social definition of "race," from a scientific standpoint, is little more than a reference to an optical illusion. The habit of assigning groups of persons bearing various physical features such as skin color, facial features, texture of hair, and even skeletal build into categories came into scientific use in the late 18th and early 19th century. Unfortunately, this method of classification to the average person brought with it the erroneous implication that such differences indicated that there could be no unifying factor.

Not surprisingly, categorizing the human species in this manner became a standard by which self-absorbed people could indulge themselves with concepts of purity that allowed them to exclude those who did not mirror their imagined superiority. This, of course, stoked the fires of hatred, prejudice, discrimination, intoleranace--i.e. all the ignoble practices that diminish the innate dignity of man.

Although categorization has been convenient in various forms of study, forensic anthropology for example, the category method of study of the human species does not alter the fact that there is absolutely no genetic basis for racial classification. Indeed, public interest in tracing their personal ancestry has revealed through DNA research that race as a scientific classification does not compute! Through DNA analysis scores of persons who had believed themselves to be of one unblemished "race" were startled to discover that they embodied considerably more than appearance seemed to present.

DNA research has shown from samples obtained from indigenous groups worldwide that all peoples are, regardless of appearances, actually interrelated. In other words, ancestry is much more than perceptible biological indicators, for biological traits are amendable and adaptive. Everyone's background includes ancestors who at one time or another had to adapt to their environment and extreme climatic changes, all of which would have influenced gene modification.

There is much left to learn about DNA and how genetics of a biological attribute may have evolved. There is such a miniscule portion of DNA that has produced all the morphological differences that account for our species' diversity that we speak of as the "races," yet we all have within us a common active denominator.

Is that denominator what people fight over as the personality known as "God"? If so, isn't science his method of dispensing genuine revealed wisdom?

Faith 3X3X3

History has shown repeatedly that for any religion to gain followers it must embody at least one of three elements: if it contains all three it is a surefire winner. The necessary ingredients for establishment of a religion include: 1) a mythology; 2) a claim of miracles; 3) a difinite doctrine regarding the "hereafter."

Most people want a religion that is colored with mythology that also includes alleged miracles about which they may express awe and fear. Such seekers also generally feel a need for a limitless eternity that is nevertheless alluded to in measurements that imitate their own limited understanding of mortal life. That way they do not have to measure up too drastically in order to claim the promised reward for their chosen belief.

Braided into this recipe for an organized religion are three common restrictions that allegedly assure special favor from Heaven. These are: 1) submit to "the will of God"--which means followers must do whatever the mouthpiece says; 2) release self of personal desire--meaning much the same as the first; and 3) advance the "faith" through self-sacrifice--again meaning followers must be thoughtless, suffering slaves for God.

Basically these three restrictions produce believers that sometimes become emotionally destructive. Genuine history has further shown that if these fundamental cult-prescriptions are followed without question the ultimate result was destruction of social and intellectual progress.

If all the above mentioned elements and restrictions are met, the inevitable result for that corporate-style belief system is to slip into the trinity of deadly sins by which all hard-line religions are known: 1) literalism, 2) formalism, and 3) dogmatism. This trinity functions to crush any sense of personal communication with the universal essences that creates as the ultimate Cause.

What little spiritual content the belief system might have offered is then transfigured into material obsession because:

1) Literalism is the insistence upon taking self-serving accounts written by unknown authors--but which are always attributed to some divinely blessed person--as unquestionable truth. 2) Formalism is the excessive and often rigorous adherence to man-invented ceremonies concerned entirely with external, extraneous aspects of worship that supposedly attract divine attention. And 3) Dogmatism is the assertion that particular beliefs are authorative, and that their unproven and improvable principles presented as spiritual guidance must be accepted as absolute truth.

Initiating and preserving these schisms between rationality and faith does not serve in the best interest of humankind's higher potential.